Abstract:BACKGROUND: Some studies have revealed an increased risk of early aseptic loosening of cementless stems in THA when inserted through an anterior or anterolateral approach compared with a posterior approach, whereas approach does not appear to be a risk factor in others. Stem design, whether "anatomic" (that is, stems with a curved lateral profile or an obtuse angle at the proximal-lateral portion of the stem) or "shoulder" (that is, straight with a proximal shoulder), may also be associated with a differential risk of aseptic loosening in cementless THA depending on the surgical approach used, but if so, this risk is not well characterized.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this national registry study, we investigated the association between surgical approach and early aseptic loosening of (1) cementless femoral stems with a proximal angular shape (shoulder); and (2) anatomically shaped femoral stems.METHODS: The Dutch Arthroplasty Registry is a nationwide population-based register recording data on primary and revision hip arthroplasty. We selected all primary THAs (n = 63,354) with a cementless femoral stem inserted through an anterior, anterolateral, or posterior approach from 2007 to 2013 with a minimal followup of 2 years. Femoral stems were classified as "anatomic," "shoulder," or "other" (that is, not classifiable as anatomic or shoulder). From the 47,372 THAs with an anatomic or shoulder stem (mean followup, 3.5 years; SD, 1.8 years), 340 (0.7%) underwent revision surgery as a result of aseptic loosening of the femoral stem, 1195 (2.5%) were revised for other reasons, and 1558 patients (3.3%) died. We used Cox proportional hazard models to determine hazard ratios for aseptic loosening of anatomic and shoulder stems for the anterolateral and anterior approaches compared with the posterior approach.RESULTS: After controlling for relevant confounding variables such as sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous surgery, and coating and material of the femoral stem, we found that there was a stem-approach interaction. Separate analysis showed that shoulder stems had a greater likelihood of early aseptic loosening when the anterolateral approach (hazard ratio [HR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.63; p < 0.001) or anterior approach (HR, 10.47; 95% CI, 2.55-43.10; p = 0.001) was used compared with the posterior approach. Separate analysis of the anatomic stems yielded no association with approach (anterolateral: HR, 1.07, 95% CI, 0.70-1.63, p = 0.77; anterior: HR, 1.31, 95% CI, 0.91-1.89, p = 0.15).CONCLUSIONS: In THA, cementless femoral stems with a proximal shoulder are associated with early aseptic loosening when inserted through an anterior or anterolateral approach compared with a posterior approach. An anatomically shaped stem may be preferred with these approaches, although further analysis with larger registry volumes should confirm our results, in particular for shouldered stems when implanted through an anterior approach.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Extended offset stems are infrequently required in anterior approach total hip arthroplasty and low usage does not compromise stability

No differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard offset and high offset short cementless stems

Adjustment of stem anteversion using tapered cone stem in total hip arthroplasty

Do Stem Design and Surgical Approach Influence Early Aseptic Loosening in Cementless THA?

Impact of surgical approaches on stem position and hidden blood loss in total hip arthroplasty: minimally invasive vs. posterolateral

Decreasing Hip Offset in Total Hip Arthroplasty Results in Decreased Physical Function Scores

Offset Considerations in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Measurement of operative femoral anteversion during cementless total hip arthroplasty and influencing factors for using neck-adjustable femoral stem

Functional outcome of direct anterior versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a propensity-matched Asian study

A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties

Does femoral stem choice influence fracture type or incidence for direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty?

The Effect of Surgical Approach and Femoral Prosthesis Type on Revision Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Does the utilization of fluoroscopy affect the accuracy of prosthesis position in patients undergoing hip replacement surgery via the direct anterior approach compared to the posterolateral approach for an experienced surgeon? A single-center retrospective study

Does Approach Matter in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Comparison of Early Re-operations Between Direct Anterior and Postero-lateral Approach

Early failure of an uncemented femoral stem, as compared to two other stems with similar design, following primary total hip arthroplasty performed with direct anterior approach

Ten-Year Experience With the Anterior Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Tertiary Care Center

Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy Does Not Compromise Functional and Radiographic Outcomes of Femoral Stem Revisions with the Use of an Uncemented Modular Conical Stem

High femoral offset as a risk factor for aseptic femoral component loosening in cementless primary total hip arthroplasty

The anterior-based muscle-sparing approach is cost-effective when compared with posterolateral and direct anterior approaches for total hip arthroplasty

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Conjoined Tendon‐Preserving Posterior Approach: The Modified Posterior Approach with a Minimum of 2‐Year Follow‐Up

A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty